Justice

[m082844]

I apologize if this was covered already. I didn't see a topic dedicated to justice.

I'm having a hard time integrating the concept of Justice with everything else I know.

Is justice an objective evaluation (judgment) based on values that the judger holds?

If so, are these values objectively based on reality or subjective?

Are these values connected with rights--i.e., life, liberty, property, etc.--and that which promotes life?

I know values are chosen by the judge, and he determines how rational they are. I also know rights are connected with reality, so if these values are connected to rights then justice is connected to reality given this chain of relationships.

If I'm close, what else am I missing?

If I'm inconsistent, feel free to point out where.

I’ve heard someone say recently that justice outside the court of law is subjective. I thought if that’s true, then it’s subjective inside the court of law as well. That got me thinking what is the objective base for justice? I can see how someone with arbitrarily chosen values will assume justice is arbitrary as well (i.e. might makes right).

Edited March 25, 2011 by m082844

[khaight]

Is justice an objective evaluation (judgment) based on values that the judger holds? If so, are these values objectively based on reality or subjective?

Rand defines justice as rationality in the evaluation of men. So yes, according to Objectivism, the standards used in judgment must be rationally grounded and therefore objective. Evaluating someone on the basis of a standard that is not rationally-grounded would not in principle be life-sustaining and therefore would not be considered a virtue by Objectivism.

Are these values connected with rights--i.e., life, liberty, property, etc.--and that which promotes life?

Yes.

I’ve heard someone say recently that justice outside the court of law is subjective. I thought if that’s true, then it’s subjective inside the court of law as well.

Legal justice is a special subcase in which the process and standards of evaluation are laid down in the law. Attempting to provide legal justice outside the context of a courtroom and the rule of law would be vigilantism.

That got me thinking what is the objective base for justice? I can see how someone with arbitrarily chosen values will assume justice is arbitrary as well (i.e. might makes right).

Rand has a really good quote on the objective base for justice in, of all places, ITOE:

What fact of reality gave rise to the concept “justice”? The fact that man must draw conclusions about the things, people and events around him, i.e., must judge and evaluate them. Is his judgment automatically right? No. What causes his judgment to be wrong? The lack of sufficient evidence, or his evasion of the evidence, or his inclusion of considerations other than the facts of the case. How, then, is he to arrive at the right judgment? By basing it exclusively on the factual evidence and by considering all the relevant evidence available. But isn’t this a description of “objectivity”? Yes, “objective judgment” is one of the wider categories to which the concept “justice” belongs. What distinguishes “justice” from other instances of objective judgment? When one evaluates the nature or actions of inanimate objects, the criterion of judgment is determined by the particular purpose for which one evaluates them. But how does one determine a criterion for evaluating the character and actions of men, in view of the fact that men possess the faculty of volition? What science can provide an objective criterion of evaluation in regard to volitional matters? Ethics. Now, do I need a concept to designate the act of judging a man’s character and/or actions exclusively on the basis of all the factual evidence available, and of evaluating it by means of an objective moral criterion? Yes. That concept is “justice.”

[Zoid]

Is justice an objective evaluation (judgment) based on values that the judger holds?

Yes. Justice is basically rational judgment applied to men's characters.

If so, are these values objectively based on reality or subjective?

Like all human values, they should be objective, i.e. based in reality. Otherwise, it can't really qualify as rational judgment.

Are these values connected with rights--i.e., life, liberty, property, etc.--and that which promotes life?

Yes, but I think justice logically precedes legal concepts like rights and property. Justice is a character trait one cultivates in oneself before it is an element of society.

I know values are chosen by the judge, and he determines how rational they are. I also know rights are connected with reality, so if these values are connected to rights then justice is connected to reality given this chain of relationships.

Justice is connected to reality, but again I think that rights are after justice in the logical hierarchy. Justice is an ethical concept first and a political concept second.

I’ve heard someone say recently that justice outside the court of law is subjective. I thought if that’s true, then it’s subjective inside the court of law as well. That got me thinking what is the objective base for justice? I can see how someone with arbitrarily chosen values will assume justice is arbitrary as well (i.e. might makes right).

Legal justice has to occur within the courts, according to objective law. Otherwise it's arbitrary, and therefore subjective.

Here's a good explanation of connection of the concept "justice" to reality. It's from Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology:

What fact of reality gave rise to the concept “justice”? The fact that man must draw conclusions about the things, people and events around him, i.e., must judge and evaluate them. Is his judgment automatically right? No. What causes his judgment to be wrong? The lack of sufficient evidence, or his evasion of the evidence, or his inclusion of considerations other than the facts of the case. How, then, is he to arrive at the right judgment? By basing it exclusively on the factual evidence and by considering all the relevant evidence available. But isn’t this a description of “objectivity”? Yes, “objective judgment” is one of the wider categories to which the concept “justice” belongs. What distinguishes “justice” from other instances of objective judgment? When one evaluates the nature or actions of inanimate objects, the criterion of judgment is determined by the particular purpose for which one evaluates them. But how does one determine a criterion for evaluating the character and actions of men, in view of the fact that men possess the faculty of volition? What science can provide an objective criterion of evaluation in regard to volitional matters? Ethics. Now, do I need a concept to designate the act of judging a man’s character and/or actions exclusively on the basis of all the factual evidence available, and of evaluating it by means of an objective moral criterion? Yes. That concept is “justice.”

EDIT: Sorry about that, khaight, I didn't see your reply. What are the odds that we'd both cite the same quote?

Edited March 25, 2011 by Zoid

[Marc K.]

I assume you are asking about the Objectivist definition of Justice and since all knowledge, concepts and values are objective in Objectivism, we reject the subjective in those areas. So:

- Justice is an objective evaluation (judgment) based on objective values that the judger objectively holds.

- Values are objectively based on reality.

- Judgment is an objective value that promotes your life and Justice is the virtue by which it is attained.

- Justice is connected to Rights in that they are both objective values that promote your life.

I know values are chosen by the judge, and he determines how rational they are.

Values are chosen and it is how they are chosen that determines whether they are rational or not.

I also know rights are connected with reality, so if these values are connected to rights then justice is connected to reality given this chain of relationships.

As I said, all objective values and concepts are connected to reality.

That got me thinking what is the objective base for justice?

The objective base of justice is that: we must judge in order to live. We must judge whether a berry is edible or not, we must judge where to build our house, we must judge when to cross the street, we must judge what is good and bad, we must judge what is true, we must judge whether someone is telling the truth. We must "judge and be prepared to be judged." -- AR (paraphrase)

The virtue of justice is "that one must never seek or grant the unearned and undeserved, neither in matter nor in spirit" -- Ayn Rand, VOS pg. 28

Justice is getting what you deserve.

In general, whenever you seek a definition of an Objectivist concept the Lexicon is a great place to start. Here is a great entry on Justice from same:

What fact of reality gave rise to the concept “justice”? The fact that man must draw conclusions about the things, people and events around him, i.e., must judge and evaluate them. Is his judgment automatically right? No. What causes his judgment to be wrong? The lack of sufficient evidence, or his evasion of the evidence, or his inclusion of considerations other than the facts of the case. How, then, is he to arrive at the right judgment? By basing it exclusively on the factual evidence and by considering all the relevant evidence available. But isn’t this a description of “objectivity”? Yes, “objective judgment” is one of the wider categories to which the concept “justice” belongs. What distinguishes “justice” from other instances of objective judgment? When one evaluates the nature or actions of inanimate objects, the criterion of judgment is determined by the particular purpose for which one evaluates them. But how does one determine a criterion for evaluating the character and actions of men, in view of the fact that men possess the faculty of volition? What science can provide an objective criterion of evaluation in regard to volitional matters? Ethics. Now, do I need a concept to designate the act of judging a man’s character and/or actions exclusively on the basis of all the factual evidence available, and of evaluating it by means of an objective moral criterion? Yes. That concept is “justice.” -- Originally from ITOE pg. 51

Here is an excellent lecture on Justice given by Tara Smith.

EDIT: Oops, me and Zoid and khaight make three, good job, nice quote.

Edited March 25, 2011 by Marc K.

[khaight]

LOL. Wow, that really is a good quote... everybody loves it.

[m082844]

Good quote; I read that first and didn't understand the root of justice, but I think Marc provided the best answers to my questions. I like the video link too; my connection isn't the best and I could only listen to the first 20min of it. I'll have to wait for a better connection to finish it.

[blazingtruth]

I agree with everything Mark mentioned:

- Justice is an objective evaluation (judgment) based on objective values that the judger objectively holds.

- Values are objectively based on reality.

- Judgment is an objective value that promotes your life and Justice is the virtue by which it is attained.

- Justice is connected to Rights in that they are both objective values that promote your life.

However I do have a few concerns which I will address:

Rand defines justice as rationality in the evaluation of men. So yes, according to Objectivism, the standards used in judgment must be rationally grounded and therefore objective. Evaluating someone on the basis of a standard that is not rationally-grounded would not in principle be life-sustaining and therefore would not be considered a virtue by Objectivism.

Legal justice is a special subcase in which the process and standards of evaluation are laid down in the law. Attempting to provide legal justice outside the context of a courtroom and the rule of law would be vigilantism.

Everything khaight said was very well-stated, and accurate. However, the connotation implies that vigilantism (while illegal in present society) is inherently wrong. I beg to differ on this.

By popular dictionary definition, "a vigilante is someone who illegally punishes someone for perceived offenses, or participates in a group which metes out extrajudicial punishment to such a person". It follows that it is only illegal because it is extrajudicial. However, I see nothing wrong with objective vigilantism, wherein if and only if somebody has the ample evidence founded in reality, and has checked his premises throughly. Why can an individual NOT be his own arbiter of justice, in matters which concern him? What standard is more rationally-grounded than that of a a rational objective man? If he can maintain an objective perspective and obeys the rule of law objectively, justice need not be a matter solely provided by courts. Yes, courts may be more pragmatic at times, but they (like even rational individuals) are fallible. Ideally, judges should be rational robots in order to be consistent in dealing justice.

[Dante]

Everything khaight said was very well-stated, and accurate. However, the connotation implies that vigilantism (while illegal in present society) is inherently wrong. I beg to differ on this.

That topic is currently being discussed here. Let's keep this thread on the topic of the virtue of justice. We don't need two concurrent conversations on this topic.

[Roderick Fitts]

@m082844

I decided to basically start over learning the philosophy of Objectivism, and recently, I started using the method of induction to work through its principles at a more easily understandable level. I've used Dr. Peikoff's "Objectivism Through Induction" as my guide, and it's been an unprecedented success thus far.

Here's two of my essays on justice:

Reduction of Justice

http://inductivequest.blogspot.com/2010/11/reduction-of-justice.html

Induction of Justice

http://inductivequest.blogspot.com/2010/11/induction-of-justice.html

I hope that these help!

Roderick Fitts

[m082844]

@m082844

I decided to basically start over learning the philosophy of Objectivism, and recently, I started using the method of induction to work through its principles at a more easily understandable level. I've used Dr. Peikoff's "Objectivism Through Induction" as my guide, and it's been an unprecedented success thus far.

Here's two of my essays on justice:

Reduction of Justice

http://inductivequest.blogspot.com/2010/11/reduction-of-justice.html

Induction of Justice

http://inductivequest.blogspot.com/2010/11/induction-of-justice.html

I hope that these help!

Roderick Fitts

Your essays do help thank you.